Full text
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-TNL Doc. 534 Filed 05/28/24 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
______________________________________________________________________________
United States of America, Case No. 22-0124 (NEB/TNL)
Plaintiff,
HAYAT NUR’S MOTION
AND MEMORANDUM FOR A
v. JUDGEMENT OF ACQUITTAL
PURSUANT TO RULE 29
Hayat Mohamed Nur,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Hayat Mohamed Nur, by and through her attorneys, Michael J. Brandt and Nicole A.
Kettwick, moves the Court for a judgement of acquittal as to Count 34 pursuant to Rule 29 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
LEGAL STANDARD
A defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal if the evidence produced against her is
insufficient to sustain a conviction. Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). After the government rests, the Court
must enter a judgement of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to
sustain a conviction. In considering the motion, the Court is to view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the government and accepting all reasonable inferences supported by the
evidence. United States v. Espinosa, 585 F.3d 418, 423 (8th Cir. 2009). The record must contain
substantial evidence supporting the jury’s verdict, meaning the evidence is sufficient to prove the
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.; see United States v. Brooks-Davis, 984
F.3d 695 (8th Cir. 2021). However, where the evidence is equally strong to infer innocence of
1
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-TNL Doc. 534 Filed 05/28/24 Page 2 of 4
the crime charged as it is to infer guilt, the court has a duty to direct an acquittal. United States v.
Kelton, 446 F.2d 669, 671 (8th Cir. 1971).
In light of these standards, it is clear that the evidence presented against Ms. Nur at trial
is insufficient to support a conviction as to count 34. Specifically, the government has failed to
prove element one, that on or about August 9, 2021, Hayat Nur knowingly caused a payment for
approximately $11,504, of Count 34—Money Laundering—beyond a reasonable doubt. For this
reason, Ms. Nur requests a judgment of acquittal on Count 34 pursuant to Rule 29(c).
ARGUMENT
A. Count 34: Money Laundering
Count 34 of the indictment charges Ms. Nur with money laundering in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1957 for the payoff of a loan by Abdimajid Nur to Wings Financial Credit Union for a
2019 Nissan Altima.
In this case the evidence presented by the government is that Abdimajid Nur obtained a
loan from Wings Financial Credit Union on November 11, 2020, with Hayat Nur acting as a
cosigner. This fact is shown by Exhibit O-103 on pages 1 and 3 where Abdimajid Nur is listed as
the “applicant.”1 Pages 5-12 of Exhibit O-103 contain loan statements listing only Abdimajid
Nur. All payments for the loan can be traced to Abdimajid Nur. Specifically, Exhibit O-97
(Abdimajid Nur’s Wells Fargo checking account records) shows four payments to Wings
Financial Credit Union on December 15, 2020, January 21, 2021, February 18, 2021, and April
2, 2021. Exhibit O-29 (Nur Consulting’s Old National Bank account records) show a payment to
Wings Financial Credit union April 30, 2021. And last, Exhibit O-30 (Nur Consulting’s Chase
account records) shows the payoff of $11,444.94.
1While Ms. Nur is also shown as an “applicant,” all subsequent documents show only Abdimajid Nur on
the account.
2
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-TNL Doc. 534 Filed 05/28/24 Page 3 of 4
All transactions regarding the 2019 Nissan Altima were made by Abdimajid Nur from
accounts controlled by him. The government has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
element one of the Money Laundering charge—that Hayat Nur “knowingly caused a payment for
approximately $11,504.” The government has produced no evidence that Ms. Nur had any
involvement with the repayment of the loan or caused any payments.
Under the government’s theory, if a parent cosigns on a college loan and the child later
pays it off with drug money or some other illegal means, the parent would be guilty of money
laundering. This notion is both unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. The mere act of
cosigning a loan does not equate to participating in or having knowledge of any illegal activity
related to the repayment of that loan.
The crime of money laundering, as charged here, is effectively the repayment of the
Wings Financial loan with funds that were proceeds of a criminal offense. In this case, Hayat
Nur did not make any payments towards the loan; this was Abdimajid Nur’s responsibility as the
owner of the vehicle. As noted above, all evidence indicates that Abdimajid Nur made all
payments for the loan from his accounts including the final payoff amount.
The jury instruction as to element one notes that, [a] defendant may be found to have
attempted to conduct a financial transaction if he or she intended to conduct a financial transaction and
voluntarily and intentionally carried out some act which was a substantial step toward conducting that
financial transaction, even if the transaction was never completed2. This explication of element one
demonstrates that the government must prove that Hayat Nur, “intentionally carried out some
act…toward conducting [the] financial transaction…” In this case there is no evidence that she
did anything regarding any transactions regarding the loan. Beyond lacking any evidence that she
2
Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the Eighth Circuit, §§ 6.18.1957.
3
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-TNL Doc. 534 Filed 05/28/24 Page 4 of 4
caused any payments on the vehicle, including the final payment in question, there is no
evidence that she benefited from the payoff of the loan, the use of the vehicle, or otherwise
derived any benefit from the vehicle.
CONCLUSION
The government has failed to demonstrate that Ms. Nur knowingly engaged in a
monetary transaction. As a cosigner on the loan, Ms. Nur’s involvement did not extend to
making payments or having knowledge of the funds being used. Because there is no evidence
showing such knowledge or involvement the government has not met its burden for element one
of the money laundering charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1957.
For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Nur respectfully requests this Court to enter a Judgment of
Acquittal as to Count 34 pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 29.
Respectfully submitted,
Brandt Kettwick Defense
Dated: 05/28/2024 /S/ Michael J. Brandt
Michael J. Brandt, Attorney No. 241548
Nicole A. Kettwick, Attorney No. 391329
Attorneys for Defendant
2150 Third Avenue North Suite 210
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
763.421.6366
4